Simplifying UCL

I've been using UCL for several days now in that work tool I mentioned, and I'm wondering if the technical challenge that comes of making a featureful language is crowding out what I set out to do: making a useful command language that is easy to embed.

So I'm thinking of making some simplifications.

The first is to expand the possible use of pipes. To date, the only thing that can travel through pipes are streams. But many of the commands I've been adding simply return slices. This is probably because there's currently no "stream" type available to the embedder, but even if there was, I'm wondering if it make sense to allow the embedder to pass slices, and other types, through pipes as well.

So, I think I'm going to take a page out of Go's template book and simply have pipes act as syntactic sugar over sequential calls. The goal is to make the construct a | b essentially be the same as b (a), where the first argument of b will be the result of a.

As for streams, I'm thinking of removing them as a dedicated object type. Embedders could certainly make analogous types if they need to, and the language should support that, but the language will no longer offer first class support for them out of the box. 

The second is to remove any sense of "purity" of the builtins. You may recall the indecision I had regarding using anonymous procs with the map command:

I'm not sure how I can improve this. I don't really want to add automatic dereferencing of identities: they're very useful as unquoted string arguments. I suppose I could add another construct that would support dereferencing, maybe by enclosing the identifier in parenthesis.

I think this is the wrong way to think of this. Again, I'm not here to design a pure implementation of the language. The language is meant to be easy to use, first and foremost, in an interactive shell, and if that means sacrificing purity for a map command that supports blocks, anonymous procs, and automatic dereferencing of commands just to make it easier for the user, then I think that's a trade work taking.

Anyway, that's the current thinking as of now.